* [No Support] Additional Formatting Options for Bibliography, Footnotes etc.

[sbell95]

I support 'Free Form' Citation Entry capability (22449) item being created. It would apply not only to EE but to many citation styles which utilise a combination of formatting styles (italics, bold, etc).

Essentially, what I would like to see is the ability to use rich text in the source fields. Whether this looks like a manual override of the existing selected template's full footnote, short footnote and bibliography entries in the prepared citation window, or the ability to select a source template defintiion field to be rich text, I'm unsure.

This may also tie in with another wish list that I've seen (not sure of the name, sorry) where users have requested the ability for all input fields to be expandable like notes are and to include the rich text functionality.

[Mark1834]

Thanks, Sarah. That’s clear, but I think the downside may be creating a lock-in to FH. If you are using detailed formatting to convey significant meaning rather than just cosmetic presentation, I can’t see how that information could be preserved on transfer elsewhere in a useable format (i.e. not just as a note).

[ColeValleyGirl]

If you are using detailed formatting to convey significant meaning rather than just cosmetic presentation, I can’t see how that information could be preserved on transfer elsewhere in a useable format (i.e. not just as a note).

The use of italics to convey meaning in citations is pretty widespread , Mark. Ditto bold (maybe not in mainstream genealogy citation styles).

Gary's original request only referenced italic, but the more generic functionality suggested by Sarah doesn't seem unreasonable. I do however think it's a different request.

We can already include both Bold and Italic in citations by e.g. using modifying the default 'Title' Style to be bold, while leaving the 'Book' Style to be italic and modifying the Source Templates/Generic Source formats accordingly. What other formatting do you envisage needing, Sarah? I'm not a fan of the idea of formatting the Template metafields -- I strongly believe they ought to be reserved for pieces of information. I'd rather see additional Style options introduced.

[ColeValleyGirl]

We have two possible ways forward to discuss:

• The ability to include formatted text in all Source and Citation fields.
• Additional Style options for styling Record Title, Bibliography, Footnote and Short Footnote for both Generic and Templated Sources.

IMO, including formatted text in the Source/Citation fields is mixing presentation and meaning, and I'd much rather keep the two separate. Introducing additional Style options here, alongside Book and Title, feels like a better way to go:

Screenshot 2023-11-09 120456.png (31.82 KiB) Viewed 1557 times

[Mark1834]

I would oppose formatting options in data fields for the following reasons:

• IMO, data and interpretation of that data should be kept separate, not mixed in together.
• Formatting is not present in the original source. By adding formatting directly to the source, you are adding interpretation to the original data. There are already options for capturing a formatted transcript if required.
• It appears illogical to have formatting for Name, Date, Repository and Place fields in a Source but not elsewhere.
• Similarly, why have formatting options for Templated Source data fields, but not other data fields, including those used in Templated Sources?

[Gary_G]

Must admit that I'm a bit confused by this thread.

I tend to think that Generic Sources are conceptually quite different than Templated Sources. As they started out in different key FH releases, their code implementation may well be quite different and could affect CP's assessment of whether a requested capability is viable to implement.

I think "'Free Form' Citation Entry capability (22449)" has landed on a clearly defined request. I believe it will be readily accepted in the context of Templated sources. The way the Generic Sources User-Interface seems to handle formatting appears to be quite different. I'd suggest that any Wishlist entry clearly separate the two. I wouldn't like to risk having both requests rejected by failing to more clearly distinguish between them.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Gary,

1. I split this out specifically so that the two wishes would not be conflated.

2. The intent is that this wish applies to both Generic and Templated Sources.

3. At present, we are limited to only two styles of formatting (:BOOK: and :TITLE:, the detail of which can be selected from a limited set of formatting options) when defining the Bibliography, Footnote and Short Footnote within Source Templates (or for Generic Sources). This request seeks to expand that capability.

[Gary_G]

Gary,

1. I split this out specifically so that the two wishes would not be conflated.

2. The intent is that this wish applies to both Generic and Templated Sources.

3. At present, we are limited to only two styles of formatting (:BOOK: and :TITLE:, the detail of which can be selected from a limited set of formatting options) when defining the Bibliography, Footnote and Short Footnote within Source Templates (or for Generic Sources). This request seeks to expand that capability.

Then, I'd suggest that the title doesn't make the intent sufficiently clear.
Based on the above, the request seems to be to "Additional pre-defined style types in citation definitions".
It appears to not really be a question of the "ability" to insert them into citation definitions, as much as making new ones available for insertion.

[tatewise]

At present, we are limited to only two styles of formatting (:BOOK: and :TITLE: ... )

Unless I misunderstand, you are overlooking the ability to add explicit style codes for Italics, Bold, Underline, Caps.
See the Source Template Definition Editor and its << Add < Add Style options.
They add explicit <i>, <b>, <u> & <c> codes to the format much like Rich Text codes.

[ColeValleyGirl]

At present, we are limited to only two styles of formatting (:BOOK: and :TITLE: ... )

Unless I misunderstand, you are overlooking the ability to add explicit style codes for Italics, Bold, Underline, Caps.
See the Source Template Definition Editor and its << Add < Add Style options.
They add explicit <i>, <b>, <u> & <c> codes to the format much like Rich Text codes.

But no Single Quotes, Double Quotes, ... which are both available as a choice in Styles.

I have long thought it odd that there are two places to do the styling.

I think we may be at the point where we need to hear from the OP, to clarify her requirement:

Essentially, what I would like to see is the ability to use rich text in the source fields. Whether this looks like a manual override of the existing selected template's full footnote, short footnote and bibliography entries in the prepared citation window, or the ability to select a source template defintiion field to be rich text, I'm unsure.

[tatewise]

At present, we are limited to only two styles of formatting (:BOOK: and :TITLE: ... )

Unless I misunderstand, you are overlooking the ability to add explicit style codes for Italics, Bold, Underline, Caps.
See the Source Template Definition Editor and its << Add < Add Style options.
They add explicit <i>, <b>, <u> & <c> codes to the format much like Rich Text codes.

But no Single Quotes, Double Quotes, ... which are both available as a choice in Styles.

I have long thought it odd that there are two places to do the styling.

I imagine that is because explicit Single Quotes (') and Double Quotes (") characters can be embedded in the Format template, just like those characters can be inserted in Rich Text. The HTML-like <x> codes are only needed for font styles (italics, bold, underscore, caps) in both Format templates and Rich Text.
i.e. Single Quotes (') and Double Quotes (") are NOT font styles but are a useful option in BOOK and TITLE Style definitions.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Duh. We have two methods of formatting footnotes etc. because of the need to cater for Generic Sources, which cannot benefit from your Add Style suggestion, Mike.

[tatewise]

The Generic Source templates can use the font Style Codes exactly the same as in Source Template Formats.
The Help page for Generic Source templates refers to the same Source Template Formats Style Codes help.
Codes can be entered by hand as <i> </i>, <b> </b>, etc, in both Generic Source and Source Template Formats.
It is just that Source Template Formats offer a convenient << Add > Add Style option for users who cannot remember the codes.

c.f. Sentence Templates where you can manually insert codes such as {individual}, {place}, {date}, etc, or use the convenient << Insert Code list of options if you cannot remember the codes.

[ColeValleyGirl]

The Generic Source templates can use the font Style Codes exactly the same as in Source Template Formats.
The Help page for Generic Source templates refers to the same Source Template Formats Style Codes help.
Codes can be entered by hand as <i> </i>, <b> </b>, etc, in both Generic Source and Source Template Formats.
It is just that Source Template Formats offer a convenient << Add > Add Style option for users who cannot remember the codes.

So, I'll wait to hear from Sarah what she wants to do that she can't currently do.

I still think Styles e.g. BOOK are preferable to styling each template individually. If you change your mind, it's easier to change things in one place.

c.f. Sentence Templates where you can manually insert codes such as {individual}, {place}, {date}, etc, or use the convenient << Insert Code list of options if you cannot remember the codes.

As you know, I don't use Sentence Templates because I don't use Narrative reports. So I'll trust you that the comparison is valid.

[tatewise]

I agree that the BOOK and TITLE Style qualifiers have some advantages and that is emphasised in the Help pages.

Another comparison is with the many Data Reference Assistants and also Date Entry Assistants that help if you don't remember the codes but you can still type in the codes directly. I'm sure you are familiar with those.

[sbell95]

I apologise if I have confused things or conflated two wish list items into one...

I think my comment on Gary's thread was more directed to support for the free-form citations wish list but within that the ability to apply rich-text formatting (italics, bold, underline specifically) on a word-by-word basis. This could look like the ability to use HTML-like codes (<i>, <b>, <u>, etc) directly in either a generic or templated source field and have FH render the appropriate formatting in the printed citation. I'm unsure how the BOOK and TITLE style qualifiers fit in with that.

Currently I am using a series of convoluted source template definitions to break apart a citation and have one or more fields of that apply a style formatting (in this case, italics). The idea I had in my head was that there could be less fields in my source template definition because I could apply the relevant formatting on a per-word basis when creating sources... does that help clarify my comment here?!

[Gary_G]

Sarah;
If I understand what is actually causing you issues, I think the "Free Form" Wishlist item (viewtopic.php?t=22449) might just solve your problem. It's really starting to take shape and you might like what you see. Perhaps; have a look at that thread (specifically viewtopic.php?p=141643#p141643), see if it does and then post back in this thread.

[ColeValleyGirl]

This suggestion seems to have wandered all over the place (and I'm partly to blame fo that).

Sarah's latest clarification was that she wanted to be able to enter formatting codes in a source field, but both here and elsewhere Mark1834 and I have explained why that is a bad idea.

Sarah, does the Free Form wish list item that Gary pointed you to render this redundant?

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'm closing this as there doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for it.